Similar Improvements in Cardiorespiratory Fitness after 12 weeks of Sprint Interval and Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sprint interval training (SIT) in the form of repeated Wingate Tests is effective for improving cardiorespiratory fitness similar to traditional moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) despite a lower time commitment. The potential “time efficiency” of SIT is frequently touted, but Wingate-based protocols nonetheless require ∼25 min per session including warm-up, cool down and recovery intervals. A SIT protocol involving only 3 x 20 sec of all out exercise within a 10 min training session was recently shown to improve VO2peak in sedentary individuals when performed 3x/wk for 6 wk. No studies have directly compared this low-volume SIT protocol to MICT, and the potential changes induced over a longer period of training are unknown. PURPOSE: To compare changes in cardiorespiratory fitness after 6 and 12 wk of low-volume SIT and a MICT protocol requiring a five-fold greater time commitment. METHODS: Sedentary men (27 ± 9 y; BMI = 27 ± 6 kg/m2) performed either SIT or MICT (n=7 each) 3x/wk for 12 wk. SIT consisted of 3 x 20 sec all out cycle sprints against 5% body mass interspersed with 2 min rest, whereas MICT involved 45 min of continuous cycling at ∼70% maximal heart rate (HRmax). A 2 min warm-up and 3 min cool-down at 50 W were included for all sessions in both groups. Training loads were adjusted as appropriate to maintain the desired stimulus. RESULTS: Mean HR elicited during MICT and SIT was 73 ± 5% and 79 ± 3% of HRmax, respectively. VO2peak increased 11% after 6 wk of training in both groups (MICT: 31.9 ± 6.1 to 35.0 ± 6.2; SIT: 30.8 ± 7.2 to 34.2 ± 7.8 ml/kg/min, p<0.001, main effect for time). VO2peak increased further at 12 wk compared to 6 wk in both groups (to 38.0 ± 9.2 in MICT and to 36.6 ± 6.9 ml/kg/min in SIT, p<0.01, main effect for time), corresponding to a 19% improvement overall compared to pre-training in each group. CONCLUSION: A sprint interval training protocol involving 3 x 20 sec bursts of all out cycling within a 10 min training session, performed 3x/wk, improved VO2peak to the same extent as 150 min per week of moderate-intensity continuous exercise. These data attest to the potency of very intense but brief intermittent cycling exercise to improve cardiorespiratory fitness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".